http://nukemars.com/2014/02/misconc...0-years-of-human-historypaleo-lifestyle/

There are many people that base what they know of the first 190,000 years of human history on Hollywood movies about cavemen rather than any academic research. The reality is that anatomically modern humans lived a hunting and gathering lifestyle exclusively for almost 190,000 years. They did this, not because they were too stupid to invent agriculture or that they had no idea what animal husbandry was, they lived that lifestyle because it was easy. In fact it was so easy a “caveman could do it”.

Interesting article indeed.


One thing is certain. The global population today would not be anywhere near 7.7 billion had agriculture and especially industrialized agriculture never arisen.

Hmmm........so when the last ice age ended and the KM thick glaciers that covered most of north america melted and receded ...we invented agriculture, cites, got diseased , started wars etc ............it was the fault of global warming all along

!!!

and we woudn't have beer..

(haha Archie, good point - who drove SUV's back then?)

Yup!


Little trivia fact: The earliest evidence of grain fermentation found by archaeologists dates back to about 8,500 years ago in what is modern day Iraq.

Everybody knows the Flintstones and Bedrock created civilization.

freudian slip ?

You will have to ask the person who wrote the article.

A lot of "academic research" has little more value than those Hollywood movies.

There is a lot of sound logic in the article, but the author sorta brushed aside a few things:

1) Yes, groups of 30 was about the max for hunter-gatherers, but that doesn't mean they didn't have government. He's applying the notion of centralized government when using the term. There was a hierarchy of leadership within each group, and we know from the few Stone Age groups still around that pacts and treaties were made, respected, and broken. When there are rules enforced by punishment decided by a leader, that's government. He's similarly using a modern concept of war. Twenty guys fighting sure feels like war to the participants. Think of a family group as a village - one that moves on a regular basis.

2) He's right on the money when it comes to rejecting both Marxism and the notion of the "Noble Savage." People specialized in skills and were rewarded for it. If one was a really good flint knapper, the Chief did not have that guy out picking berries; he had him making tools. Personal property mattered. Ability + Need - Desire to Work = banishment, which is pretty much a death sentence. They probably cared for their disabled and elderly, because the people of the Deep Stone Age were no different than we are today. In the case of Alaska, there is a huge problem with teen suicide - it's cultural that when family needs outstrip resources, some members remove themselves from the family. Similarly, the elderly sometimes take a Long Walk out into the tundra.

On the Noble Savage, particularly the notion that ancient peoples only took what they needed and left the rest, one has only to visit a Buffalo Jump to know the lie of it.

3) That environmental and other factors pushed us towards agriculture and animal domestication was a godsend for our species. We know that we were down to the nub of genetic viability and nearly exited the planet - the fact that we can trace a mitochondrial Eve that is far more modern than the species is pretty scary when one thinks about it.

While it may seem "lazy" to be a hunter-gatherer, in fact it's a helluvalot of work. It's a hand-to-mouth existence, with constant motion to fish, check trap lines, gather plants, etc. If one is living off of large herds of megafauna, it's still the same. It's a constant investment in time and materials to keep it up.

If one can domesticate plants and animals fit for consumption, the forces of mobility aren't required, and there is a degree of predictability. Collecting chicken or guinea eggs is much easier than searching for them or climbing trees to get them. Ditto the pig, the cow, the goat, and the sheep. Sheep were a two-fer! One's shelter can become far more substantial as well.

It also allows for free time. People (in general) are terrible at doing nothing. One can invest several hours making and perfecting musical instruments, which is a pretty huge luxury, for an example.

+1

From what I understood off other books, the time investment for hunter-gatherers to find their food was far less substantial than today believed. But it only worked for small groups, so feeding large groups (Armies!) required agriculture.

Kim Stanley Robinson’s book “Shaman” is a pretty good read about a small group of modern humans 32,000 years ago.

Yep, but it's always a concern. I think we fail to really understand what hunter-gatherers did; they didn't just randomly forage and hope for the best. They put out trap lines, to include fish traps, and walked them daily. When an area was getting played out or conditions changed, they'd move on to set up another base camp. American Indians certainly established hunting grounds and territories and defended them for this reason.

One of the huge barriers to technological advancement is a nomadic lifestyle. It's not that the people weren't smart or clever enough - it's that everything has to be carried on one's back or by sledge.

Any Infantryman can tell you that gear and belongings are always being evaluated on the basis of need - if it's not absolutely necessary it gets left behind.

Writing in particular depends on agriculture. We've lots of evidence of prehistoric peoples carving pictographs and figures onto cliffs and into caves - one can visit them and tell the stories they represent. But one simply isn't going to carry a hide or clay tablet with the same information; for a nomad, ounces really matter!

The biggest hurdle to imagination is failing to realize that one could take a homo sapiens from 100,000 years ago, bring him to today, and once the language barrier was crossed and the culture shock subsided they'd be absolutely no different than anyone else. Plunk him into any one of the remote hunter-gatherer groups that still exist and there would only be the matter of language.

To a caveman "different" is dangerous yet here we are a few short millennia later being told "different" is good. They wonder why prejudice is so deeply engrained...

I think that's a bit of a stretch. I work at a place that supports 11 different languages - there are people there from pretty much everywhere in the world except for Europe and Australia. Many of these people are VERY different from any people I've known prior to working there - one example, there are women who flat out don't care if a man is in the restroom with them. I imagine they grew up just doing their business outside before they got here.

Another - I had a girlfriend in the 2000's who grew up in a poor country (she was rich when I met her though, STILL regret letting that one get away!). She'd get in the shower, water off, turn it on while standing directly under the nozzle, and immediately start washing in that freezing cold water. It had been decades since she'd lived where water was so precious, but she just could not kick that habit. It was just too deeply ingrained in her mental DNA. And keep in mind she was a petite woman who really hated cold...

I'd say just those two examples qualify as being pretty darn "still different and locked that way for life" - and this is with humans of TODAY, who despite having grown up in circumstances most of us would consider pitiful and painful still had a life experience closer to our own than the people of 100k years ago...

As for the purely physical - pure speculation on my part but I bet they had (on average) way more body hair, and very few men who couldn't grow a long and thick beard...